tv [untitled] July 27, 2013 1:00am-1:31am PDT
and proscribed by state law. the code says the rate that we should be using the risk rate we should be using depending on the property type so before you have two sheets, a summary page and a detailed evaluation page. i would like to walk you through the detailed evaluation page and point out where the change was made. we began estimating what the market rent would be for the buchanan street. from that market rent we subtracted and allowable vacancy and collection loss. we subtracted some operating expenses that should be allowed for the property to approve at the net income. the change was made in the risk factor. for over occupied buildings it's 4%. for all other property types the risk factor is 2%. our initial
evaluation used 4% for the entire property. we were -- that's incorrect because part of the property is owner occupied so we applied the 4% risk rate to the owner occupied portion of the rate and 2% for the non owner occupied portion of the property. this resulted in evaluation being adjusted to .29 95. and the second handout is the revised summary page. the three prong test as you can see and the current assessed value is listed here and result in taxes of approximately $19,000. based upon the three prong test the lower of the values, the restricted value, which is 1.1 million, and the factory
facta value and $2 million and the value should be as listed here and results in tax savings of approximately $6,000 and i am here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. colleagues do we have any questions? thank you very much. mr. rose can we go to the budget analyst report please. >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 20 of the report and i'm going to use the revised numbers which were just stated. >> thank you. >> and table two and page 20 of our report the first annual property tax is paid to the city by the property owners would be 5991 would be the specific
amount or 33% less than the $19,000 which the department referenced. that amount stays the same. that's the estimated property taxes which are otherwise paid to the city so if the proposed property agreement is not authorized that would be -- they would not receive that reduction. if the -- the total amount over the 10 year period and as the supervisors know the mills act is a 10 year agreement. at the end of 10 years it will automatically renew unless either the board of supervisors or the property owners requests that it be not continued, so over the first initial 10 years if you use the number of 5991 which is the reduction in the first year the total estimated reduction would be at least 59,000 and 10 times that amount and that would be
adjusted over the 10 year period. now, we also point out that the total estimated cost to the property owner of rehabilitating and maintaining buchanan street over the initial 10 year period over this act which is 667,000. our recommendation on page 21 corrects the numbers regarding the rehabilitation, so that our recommendation specifically is to amend the proposed mills act historical property agreement to reflect that the actual costs have been occurred for work included in the rehabilitation program with a total of 636949, an estimated expenditures expected upon completion instead of the estimated included and that you approve the amendment.
i am happy to respond to any questions. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions? why don't we move to public comment on item three. i do have a few cards and if anyone else wants to speak please come forward. [calling speaker names] and if there is anyone else please line up on the far wall and the first speaker can get going. >> good morning supervisors. thank you for hearing this today. the house has been a labor of love for us and we are heartened to see the assessor's office, the planning department, supervisor wiener's office, supervisor breed's office coming together to protect this treasure for san francisco. we are thrilled to be a part of it and to live there and looking forward to restoring this place. this is my husband porschea
peopleels and wanted to acknowledge alex and he's a contractor and doing a lot to help with this project and we are happy to take any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. okay. anybody else wish to publicly comment on item three? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues we have recommendations from the budget analyst. >> so move the recommendation. >> okay. we will take those amendments without opposition and i want to thank the colleagues and staff for being here. thank you for your participation and can we take that without opposition? so moved. mr. clerk can we move forward now to item 15. >> item 15 resolution to authorize the risk management division of the city administrator and brokerage agreement with alliant insurance
services for not to exceed value of $22 million. >> okay. we have matt hansen here. >> good afternoon supervisor. i here today for this agreement to go with another provider and approved under qualifications previously done. this provider of insurance brokerage service is alliant insurance services and they provide the broke arage for the cities programs. this has been reviewed by the budget analyst's office and suggested amendments which are finding accepting and appreciate the work of the budget analyst's office and i will take any questions you may have. colleagues, any questions? okay. seeing none. thank you very much. we will go to the budget analyst report mr. rose please. >> on the bottom of page 51 we
report that the total estimated expenditures for insurance prumiums under the agreement in 14-15 are listed on the report page 52 and on page 53 of our report we point out that given that the risk management division cannot fully anticipate all future insurance needs we believe that there should continue to be a constituency and we have estimated that at $500,000 a year or a million dollars a year so that the total estimated cost of the insurance is shown as page 54 in table four would be 19 million. our recommendations on the bottom of
page 54 we recommend that you do the resolution for approval and provide for additional two year options and the agreement through 2019. amend the proposed resolution to reduce the contract by one month and terminate on june 2015 instead of the other date and the resolution not to exceed amount listed from 22 million to 19. 5 million which includes the $1 million constituency and we recommend that you approve this resolution as recommended. >> thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions for mr. rose. thank you very much. we will open it up for public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. okay colleagues we have a --
>> motion to accept the budget analyst's recommendations. >> okay. we can do so without opposition and the underlying item as amended. we can accept that also without opposition. mr. clerk can you call item 16 and 17 together. >> item 16 appropriating the amount listed for refunding certificate of participation. number 17 resolution for refunding certificate of participation and capital projects in one or more series in the aggregate amount not to exceed amount listed. >> thank you. we have someone here to speak on these items. >> good morning. nadia [inaudible]. we're here before you today to ask for authorization to ask one or more series of refunding certificates to pay down four of the certificate of participation
that are outstanding and before you. those include 2001 series [inaudible] 2003 serious for the house improvement and 2004 series for the juvenile hall as well as 2007 series of acquisition of van ness property. we are approving a threshold of savings of 3%, so we ask that you give us the authority to do the series and some of them identified here (inaudible) potentially refunded as soon as the board approves it. the 2007 series is not in callable right now but will be next year but this authority allows the flexibility for the office of public finance to access the market and take advantage of the low interest rate environment. of the three
transactions we believe that are in the money there is a possibility that the city could issue two of the three and knowing it's the third transaction and the van ness building could be delayed to policy considerations. with that you're also approving a document that is updated to reflect the recent documents including the five year financial plan as well as the proposed budget, but it would be need to be updated to reflect the recently adopted budget for the 2013-14 and 14-15 year. with that i'm -- we have supervisor -- director of real estate here who can also talk about the valuation if someone is interested. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? okay. thank you very much mr. rose. can we go to the reports for items 16 and 17. >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 60
it's anticipated that the amount in the refunding subject subject would have interest rate of 3.8 8% and total debt service of 113.6 million and total estimated interest costs of 30.5 million and estimated principal listed here. on page 61 of our report we point out that it's estimated that the city's refunding cop's result in savings to the city of 4.3 million dollars and over the term of the refunding cop's to be issued and obviously that comes from the reduced interest rates by refunding the existing cop's. our recommendations on page 62 of the report. we recommend that you amend the resolution to have the office
report to the board of supervisors on all planned issuances of 2013 refunding cop's above the currently planned 83 million number in the cop's. once details are known and we recommend that you approve the legislation as amended. >> thank you mr. rose. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose? okay. seeing none we will open it up february public comment on. >> >> for public comment on 16 and 17? seeing none public comment is closed. >> i will move the recommendations. >> we will do that without opposition and the underlying items both amended and do without opposition? so moved. okay pl. clerk can you call item 18. >> item 18 resolution between the city through the treasure island authority and the san
francisco transportation authority yerba buena island ramps for a total of $81,700,000. >> thank you. mr. beck. >> thank you supervisor farrell, members of the committee. we have before you two memorandum of agreements between the transportation authority and tida and the city and county of san francisco for services to reconstruct the westbound on rampos the east side of yerba buena island. the first is for right-of-way services to accept from transfer from the navy through us through tida the property which the rachs are constructed and after that transfer the properties to caltrans. the second is for the construction much the ramps itself and i have a powerpoint
and we have the transportation authority also here. i would point out that the transportation authority board yesterday did approve these moa's on behalf of the transportation authority. [inaudible] between tida and transportation authority and the ramps project we're going to construct and i will take any questions you may have. tida
and mta entered into a agreement and there is a increase in the local match of 750,000 to increase preliminary engineering and also that the -- in october of 2011 we executed moa with the transportation thfert to act as the mobility management agency for treasure island as well. under these proposed moa's as i mentioned we will provide services for the ramp projects as well as the construction and construction management of the ramp construction. you see here the existing ramps on the west side -- the east side of the island. the off ramp is on the east side or the left side of the structure, and the on ramp has a very short acceleration distance has it enters the bridge. the
new ramps will provide -- will both be on the right-hand side of the freeway and will have longer deceleration and acceleration zones. the estimated cost of construction is seven 7.5 million dollars and primary funded by highway bridge programs and state prop 1b. the local match portion of this project is to be reimbursed by the treasure island community development. in march the transportation motor . >> >> authority completed the project and the right-of-way certification and selected a traffic management consultant. we are expecting at the end of this month the e76 or the federal highway authorization of approving the funding to move
into construction, and with that we would award the transportation authority the construction management contract. with the board approval we will execute the moa's award the construction management and the contracts and award it november of this fall and beginning construction in january of next year. i can take any questions you may have. >> colleagues, any questions? okay. much appreciated. we don't have a budget analyst report so we will move to public comment. no public comment so it's closed. colleagues, can i have a motion to approve these items? >> mr. chairman i believe there is a need to amend the title.
>> okay. actually -- >> chairman farrell can i ask a question? >> please supervisor mar. >> i know in my conversations with the city administrator there have been discussions whether this project move forward like a private public partnership like dial drive project and other approaches and i am wonderings if you could talk about that. >> [inaudible] construction project by the federal highway bridge program. just to speak to the amendment to the title of the item as well. the original title to the item cited a project combined value for the project of just over $50 million. that was referencing the peak annual reimbursement under underneath
the construction moa and not the aggregate for the moa and for the right-of-way and the combined value as presented in the amended language. >> i really appreciate the presentation. i know it's one of the most hairy and dangerous ramps, and i know as the bay bridge reopens hopefully very, very soon that how timely and important this project is but thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. colleagues, any other questions? so we have an amendment of the whole here to provide retroactively and change the title so can i have a motion to accept the amendment on a whole? do so without opposition and the new amended item -- can we take that without opposition also? so moved. okay. mr. clerk can you please call item 19. >> item 19 resolution
authorizing the finding for sign to the metropolitan transportation commission committing any necessary matching funds stating insurance to complete the project and authorizing public works to exspend $17,026,221 in one bay area grant program grant programs. >> hi. i am rachel with public works. this resolution would authorize us to spend just over $17 million in projects a -- approved by the metropolitan transportation commission and for the one bay area grant program and known o bag and this here we were able to award funds for several eligible project
types, bicycle and pedestrian improvement, safe routes to schools and street scapes projects and were approved by you sitting as the transportation authority board after a rigorous process and the commission requires a resolution of local support be passed by the sponsoring authority with specific language which is why we're presenting this to you. the $17 million will be allocated as follows. six $77,000 for the safe routes to six project and improve pedestrian safety in district 11. funds for the safe routes to school project for el taylor and in district 9. funds for the chinatown broadway phase four street design project and increase the improvements to columbus avenue to the broadway
tunnel and powell street and completed in three phases. finally funds for the second street scape improvement projected which will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, add landscaping and furnishing and improve the area. i am joined by the project managers for the four projects and we are happy to answer any questions from you. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? mr. avalos. >> i thought there were other programs and -- >> yes and the mta is responsible for the projects right now. >> colleagues, any further questions or comments? thank you very much. we don't have a budget analyst report and we will move to public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward without opposition? so moved. mr. clerk can you please cull item number 20.
>> item 20 resolution providing for the sale of certificate of participation and interest in the right to receive certain rental payments to be made by the city under a project lease finance capital projects at the port of san francisco. >> okay. could you also call number 21 up. >> item 21 and certificate of participation for the jurisdiction over pier 27 from the port commission to the general services agency real estate division and from the city back to the port commission upon full payment of debt approving a memorandum of understanding between the port commission and the city controller regarding obligation from the certificate of participation. >> great. thank you. >> thank you supervisors. so federal law securities impose on the city the obligation to ensure it's documents are
accurate and complete and applies to all members of the governing body and the disclosure documents as well as city staff charged with preparing the document. in 2012 the board of supervisors approved the delivery and sale of certificate of participation up to $45 million to finance improvements at the facilities for the port commission and those also include the janes [inaudible] cruise ship terminal. the project when approved we used commercial of $35 million to deliver the project. as you know it was completed and it was turned over to the events authority so they can continue to use it. when you approved it at the time it was [inaudible] but since that time the board approved the document that had a section called appendix a that talks about the city financing process, the government structure, budget process,
property taxation, expenditures, laborer relations as well as will employment benefits and retirement costs so what we're doing now sup dating that to reflect the changes in terms of the city's financial condition as well as approving the hearing that is required under federal law for this type of transaction. it allows -- by approving this you're facilitating the tax exemption and certificate of participation. when you approved the transaction last time it approved a public hearing that occurred in april 2012. since then we had another hearing because it expired due to the lag of when it was approved and now issuing a year later we were required to have the hearing which we did hold in april 28, 2013 so by approving this you're approving
the public hearing that occurred. in addition we're also -- the second item is an administrative process. when the certificate of participation were approved we had used a portion of laguna honda as the pledge and security for the transaction. what this does as soon as the cruise ship terminal is completed the lean would move from laguna honda to the cruise ship terminal and stay with the transaction through the term and revert back to the port of san francisco once the terminal of certificate is ended. with that i am happy to answer any questions. we know the commercial paper -- thank you to the board for extending that and increasing the amount. it's good to have that opportunity so that key with continue to lead on the project. >> >> thank you. colleagues any questions? we don't have a budget analyst report for either item? >> [inaudible] from the port. >> do you want to come up and
speak? you have been waiting here. >> good afternoon supervisors. elaine from the port. we are appreciative that the city agreed to use this with the project and we we the city has a higher credit rating and this say win for us and we are thankful and you previously approved the issuance and as described this is the documents and et cetera to allow for the sale of the projects to take out the commercial paper. >> great thank you. we will continue working on that rating improvements on our end. colleagues any other questions? seeing none public comment is closed. anybody wish -- >> >> and could i have a motion to move these to the full board? do so without opposition. mr. clerk can you call item 22.
>> item 23 i believe. >> excuse me that's right. item 23. >> item 23 resolution authorizing the director to execute the agreement with alstom transportation incorporated for vendor inventory services not to exceed $39,158,000. >> okay. thank you very much. i believe we have the mta to speak on this item. >> good afternoon chair farrell, supervisors avalos and mar. virginia harmen for mta. historically it's been our practice to purchase parts for all divisions by using competitive bids for all items using a purchase order process. this process can be administratively burdensome given what we do for our division. it can be